Deception is different: Negative validity test findings do not provide "evidence" for "good effort".

Area of Science:

• Neuropsychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Evidence-Based Medicine

Background:

• Malingering determination in forensic settings relies on validity testing.
• Current practices debate the inclusion of negative validity test findings in aggregate analyses.
• Deception about illness presents unique challenges compared to other medical/neuropsychological conditions.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the utility of incorporating negative validity test findings into Bayesian aggregate analyses for malingering.
• To determine if negative findings equate to evidence of "good effort" in malingering assessments.

Main Methods:

• Review of evidence-based diagnostic methods in neuropsychology and medicine.
• Application of logical and Bayesian analyses to malingering cases.
• Case study illustrating the interpretation of negative validity test findings.

Main Results:

• Illness deception is distinct from other medical/neuropsychological conditions due to its deliberate and potentially coached nature.
• Negative validity test findings do not confirm "good effort" but rather a lack of evidence for malingering.
• Comparative analysis reveals fundamental differences in how malingering can be manipulated versus other conditions.

Conclusions:

• The assertion that both positive and negative validity test findings should be aggregated is not supported by comparative scrutiny.
• The assumption that negative findings indicate "good effort" is flawed; they signify a lack of evidence, not evidence of absence.
• Negative validity test findings should be excluded from Bayesian aggregation in forensic malingering determinations, consistent with existing practices.